Parents as tigers and wimps: Cycles in child rearing and schooling

By
Valerie Strauss

This was written by Larry Cuban, a former high school social studies teacher (14 years, including seven at Cardozo and Roosevelt high schools in the District), district superintendent (seven years in Arlington, Virginia) and professor emeritus of education at Stanford University, where he has taught for 20 years. His latest book is "As Good As It Gets: What School Reform Brought to Austin."

The post, which appeared on his blog, refers to the book "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother." Author Amy Chua writes about how she raised her children with traditional Chinese values that she extended to measures that included rejecting her kids’ homemade birthday cards for their lousy quality and forcing one of her daughters to do 2,000 math problems a night after she came in second in a math competition.

By Larry Cuban
Amy Chua may be laughing all the way to the bank at the fuss she kicked up about her tough-love parenting of daughters in “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother.” Time magazine reports that her Wall Street Journal op-ed garnered over a million readers as well as 5,000 comments and an animation made in Taiwan.

For educated, financially comfortable non-Tiger Moms, however, the thought of giving up “Baby Mozarts,” chants of “well done” to build self-esteem, and, yes, even sleepovers–is too much. In response to Tiger Moms, Ayelet Waldman says, developing empathy in children, nurturing them, and giving them room to decide things for themselves, while still achieving high grades and gathering awards, are traits that she and other non-Tiger Moms want to develop.

Competing ways of rearing children, of course is nothing new. Since the 17th century, ministers, mothers, and, later, physicians, and psychologists have written manuals to guide parents in raising children. Historians have analyzed these advice manuals. What they have found are basically two child rearing models that are similar to Tiger Moms and Guilty, Nurturing Moms.

I label them Strict Parent vs. Nurturing Parent. Of course, these models–see George Lakoff’s version–span a continuum and are not mutually exclusive. Many parents use hybrids of the two in their families.

Strict parent model teaches children right from wrong by setting clear rules for their behavior and enforcing them through punishments, typically mild to moderate but sufficiently painful to get attention. When rules are followed and children cooperate, parents show love and appreciation. Children are not coddled since a spoiled child seldom learns proper behavior. Children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant by following the rules and listening to parents.

Nurturing parent model teaches children right from wrong through respect, empathy, and a positive relationship with parents. Children obey because they love their parents, not out of fear of punishment. Parents explain their decisions to children and encourage questioning and contributing ideas to family decisions. Children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant through being nurtured and caring for others.

No surprise that these competing models of child rearing have entered schools. Parents want their schools to be extensions of what is taught at home. Nor is it a surprise that the ideological and practical conflicts in schools today are anchored in these rival approaches to child-rearing.

In the early 19th century, for example, taxpayers, parents, and public officials saw public schools as proper places for the tenets of Protestant Christianity, steeped in Biblical views of parental authority, where teachers would teach that disobedience was a sin.

Thus, raising children to respect authority, be self-disciplined, and know right from wrong–the Strict Parent model– was expected in one-room schoolhouses and, later, age-graded elementary schools. This dominant Strict Parent model of raising and schooling children was viewed as natural and, best for children and society before and after the Civil War.

The onslaught of industrialization, rapid urban growth, an emerging middle-class, and massive immigration spurred reformers to advocate a more “progressive” view of how best to raise and school children. Confined initially to manuals for middle-class parents, readers were urged to cultivate the innate goodness of children rather than dwell on their potential sinfulness. Parental love and example, not punishment, would produce respect for authority, self-discipline, and moral rigor in children.

For post-Civil War urban reformers who saw hard-working immigrant parents living in slums, traditional schools were inadequate. They got schools to expand their usual duties and take on nurturing roles that families had once discharged. Schools offered medical care, meals, lessons to build moral character including respect for authority and job preparation. Teachers were expected to develop children’s intellectual, emotional, and social capacities to produce mature adults who acted responsibly. This rival ideology became the progressive model of schooling.

By World War I, then, these competing progressive and traditional ideologies constituted different faiths in the best way of raising and schooling children. These beliefs had become embedded in educators’ language and school programs thus creating a platform for subsequent struggles over what “good” schools were and should be. The “culture wars” since the 1960s over teaching reading, math, science, and other content in schools are variations of this century-long seesaw struggle of ideas over what ways are best to raise and school children.

Today’s media hullabaloo over Amy Chua’s Tiger Mom and angry rebuttals from many parents (and grandparents) are at the root of the traditional vs. progressive cyclical conflicts that have ebbed and flowed over what reforms work best in U.S. schools.

I am Chinese, and I am a mother, but I am not a tiger mother. I wanted to be a good mother, a wish that all mothers surely share.

In my quest to be one, I read parenting books. I sought advice from parenting experts. I talked to other parents.

Everyone had something to say to me about parenting, the Asian way to parent, the Western way to parent, the right way to parent, the better way to parent, the best way to parent, the only way to parent.

It has been more than two decades since I read my first book on parenting. And now looking back, I see that I had the best teacher in my daughter. From the minute she was born, she was telling me how I could be the right mother for her...the best mother for her...

And I learned...by listening to her...by watching her...and by knowing her...

Great post by gaimusho and another outstanding (as usual) post by Professor Cuban.

Let's also not forget the Committee of Ten (1896) v the Cardinal Principles (1918), contrasting philosophies for US high schools from the end of the 19th century into the beginning of the twentieth. One stressed the acquisition of knowledge and the other...didn't.

The pendulum on child rearing and schools continues to swing.

How about we create two types of public schools for students; one academically based, the other on the affective domain. Let the parents choose the philosophy they like and then allow the chips fall where they may.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.